Forum Topic

Continued. That evening I arrived and was directed into the policed (x2 w fluorescent jackets) basement (Queens Hall)with a video link to the Council Chamber where the planning meeting was to be held. The young lady who directed me was not wearing an Ealing "badge". She smiled as she directed me to the basement. I made some comment about how I worked abroad for 2 years as a volunteer and as a result valued what we call democracy. She smiled "through" me. This was the same girl wearing the same clothes who directed us to the same basement for the Dickens yard debacle on the 5th of Nov. The reason I have included this is because she gave me the impression that she was participating in something that was not quite right. This was the same feeling I got when I was talking to the people in the "queue". Too much smiling and I'll refer to this again. I have to say that in the basement we were in the best of company. Cllr  Millican the Regeneration portfolio holder was sat near the door (chance or planned)and the police at the back. I think he is responsible for all these developments and the numerous wasted evenings I have spent in the Town Hall responding to consultations on how we would like Ealing to develop. All ignored! What was significant was  that what sounded like cheers from the gallery in the meeting (from the "queue") were matched with gasps (ah the restraint of the senior citizen)from the basement when photos of the proposed developments were shown on the video link. Those speaking against the plans were therefore subject I assume to a degree of pressure from the gallery and from strict time limits.This is the important bit. The papers for this meeting have a sheet that reads Welcome to the Planning Committee.... and I will copy the three paras from this doc in the next posting . sorry to be continued

Arthur Breens ● 6447d

Here are the three paras from the Council papers"The venue for this meeting is the Council Chamber, where meetings of the Planning Committee usually take place. The seats in the Council Chamber public gallery will be allocated on a first come first served basis.Members of the public wishing to attend this meeting must queue on Uxbridge Road by the main steps of the Town Hall. If you have a disability that would not permit you to climb the stairs to the public galery, 4 spaces will be set-aside in the Council Chamber. To book one of these spaces, that will again be allocated on a first come first served basis, please call 0208 825 6588.Any members of the public that can't be seated in the public gallery will be invited into the Queens Hall where there will be a large screen relaying a visual and audio feed of the meeting taking place in the Council Chamber."You can make what you will of this. There was no mention of tickets. I never saw a ticket and was not offered one by a tout. I phoned the committee section later to complain about being directed into the basement and was brushed aside by saying that "hindsight was fine thing" or something like that. From a councillor who was concerned about the basement debacle the same dept said to her that they had no way of checking where the people who took the seats in gallery came from.This all smells fishy but it isn't the most important thing that happened that night. There was a discussion about the numbers and quality of submissions for and against the Arcadia plan from the public. This became confusing for the "aware" public and was bundled along by Jones (Planning Officer). I looks as though the figures were incorrectly counted and it wasn't clear what the real figures were until they had been laid out carefully by a member of the public long after the meeting. Massaging figures can't be right but it is difficult to prove and impossible to convict on. ( I have seen massaged results for CPZ consultations in Ealing so I understand the methodology) However Cllr Taylor quoted (probably quite innocently) these massaged figures in his address to the committee supporting the proposals but I haven't seen his analysis and apology in public correcting them.  Worse still is the feeling I got all along that this (reported by many others) meeting was the staging of a decision that had been made beforehand. See you in the gulag!

Arthur Breens ● 6447d

I had a very strong feeling that the Council was going to approve the Arcadia application before the hearing day. I went to watch some history and sat in the gallery. It was very sad to see the end of Ealing centre as I have known it for decades. It is pitiful that all the Council seems to want to do, is turn the borough into a high rise dormitory rather than create new wealth with new additional business undertakings. (Sad also that Councillor Millican and others cannot publicly engage on this point). I found it hard to know who was who, but clearly there were one or two Councillors who waffled on endlessly, just filling time before the vote. A really good example of people loving the sound of their own voices. Few powers of intelligent analysis were in evidence that evening. But perhaps that is how the world of Councils go round when planning decisions are actually made. Councillor Phil Taylor spoke quietly and said little – not surprising after the debates on the internet. He supported the application. The piles of paper which were available for onlookers in the public gallery were extremely massive and would have taken hours and hours (if not weeks) of reading. Whether the planning officer did her job correctly was difficult to ascertain for a layman to ascertain. She was dealing with an enormously complex issue. I am sure she was very experienced. All the planning decision making Councillors voted in favour bar the chair who voted against. His comment was that since all the others had voted in favour, then why not cast a vote against. – or words to that effect. To me the tone of those remarks sounded contemptuous and supercilious. One of the options of course is to ask for the decision to be reviewed, and perhaps for the Council papers to be perused under the Freedom of Information Act, but happy reading and technical research to s/he who wishes to take on such a task.So it is easy to join the army of hostility and suspicion and be swept along by crowd bigotry. But on the question of that famous queue you should tread very carefully. Were any of you, like me, in that queue? Do any of you have first hand evidence of who was there and who came and went and who was in the gallery? It seems not. If I am right, then I would counsel some of you to base some of your opinions on this website with greater care.I stood and froze for at least 90 minutes until the doors opened to give access to the officer dishing out the tickets to the gallery. I think the doors for all planning applications open at 4 p.m. I stood immediately behind the queue of so called students as I was next in line. Actually they were people in probably their early to late thirties in suits or similar office wear. Many had cases bulging with papers. I wondered who they might be. They did not seem to talk about the case but if anything were talking socially. They seemed all to know each other. I kind of suspected that these people were associated with the developers owing to the suits and the bulging papers. They were perhaps about ten to twelve in number. Far less than the capacity of the gallery. In front of them there were perhaps three or four older people. Behind me there were not many more as I recall. Several people behind me kept coming and going. They were like me definitely not students (except perhaps of the Third Age). If any of you had really wanted to sit in the gallery, then had you arrived in sufficient time, I saw nothing to suggest that you would have been turned away.After getting my gallery ticket I returned just before the hearing.  Around where I sat in the gallery most people were 50+. Hostile and cynical were they. There were younger people but some clearly were residents. There were middle aged people in the gallery – some in suits making me think some were interested in the application being approved, but not all. And of course we know that there are many who wanted this decision as there is a lot of money at stake. Nobody while I was there when the main decision was made booed or shouted from the gallery (quite disappointing really). Had I been a Councillor (something this event most assuredly decided me never to be), I would have looked up to see a cross section of society. But they never seemed to look up.The Tories won because of the tram according to most people I speak to. Will they lose because of overdevelopment, or will we forget  and keep them in because we blame Gordon Brown for the mess we are in (and which the Council so far apart from providing free parking in January has done little about)?It’s up to you - and the opinion of anyone who does not rely on proper evidence (or who does not vote), is not worth the paper it is written on. I rest my case.

George Knox ● 6445d

This came up at our residents’ association meeting where one resident also reported that she felt the allocation of seats in the public gallery that had not been fair or transparent. We decided to ask the Council under the Freedom of Information Act what process had been used. We discovered that restricting entry to the gallery by ticket has only ever been done on two occasions, both very recent; the Dickens Yard hearing last November and Arcadia Planning Committee hearing last December.We were told that the doors to the Council Chamber and public gallery are always opened at 6pm. However, for the Arcadia hearing the Council had decided to suspend normal procedures and issue tickets from 4pm for seats in the public gallery. All the tickets had gone by 6.35pm. It is not unreasonable for residents to believe they had allowed sufficient time to get into the public gallery if they arrived there 25 minutes before the start, but instead they found all the seats had been taken by people who had known to queue and collect tickets earlier in the day. This is a deviation from normal practise and therefore ought to have been well communicated so that everyone had a fair and equal opportunity of getting in there. The Council claims that guidance they made available on the internet and in paper format at the meeting made this change in process clear. I have read this and I disagree. Their relevant guidance only seems to have stated that the ‘seats in the Council Chamber public gallery will be allocated on a first come first served basis’ and that ‘members of the public wishing to attend this meeting must queue on Uxbridge Road by the main steps of the Town Hall.’ So people would have expected to have to queue, but I can find nothing in the Council’s guidance that would have informed people that they should expect to queue for a 4pm allocation of tickets rather than the normal, expected 6pm opening of the doors for 7pm start of the meeting. No mention of tickets or 4pm whatsover! And yet some people obviously knew to queue as early as 2.30pm. How? This 2/3 hour difference in time is significant – especially on a cold December afternoon/evening. The Council had ample means to inform the public of these changes, they could have put notices up on their website, in Around Ealing or outside the Town Hall. They did not. It is not surprising that people feel cheated. The changes the Council brought in for the Arcadia and Dickens Yard Planning Committee hearings were not made clear to people and people quite rightly want to know why.

John Simms ● 6444d

Thanks to everyone who has shed light on this issue. However, I would like to ask George how he found out he needed to queue as early as 2.30pm for the 7pm Arcadia hearing. Did you just happen upon that queue George, or had you been informed by the Council about the tickets and their 4pm release? If so, how and by who?As regards the threat of further action by the Council’s spokesperson I am quite frankly appalled that a publicly funded organisation supposedly acting for us and answerable to us should stoop so low as to intimidate us for asking questions and seeking truths and clarification. It is a distasteful, obvious bullying tactic intended to silence us. What it does do though is reveal an arrogant belief that some people in our Town Hall think they’re above public scrutiny.I started this thread because I wanted to establish if there was any truth in the rumors flying around that Glenkerrin supporters had somehow been given an unfair advantage over residents in being able to be PRESENT and VISIBLE and AUDIBLE at the Arcadia planning committee hearing. It is a fact that this is being spoken of in our community whether it pleases the Council or not.Instead of strong-arm tactics it would be more befitting of public servants and councillors to provide answers to some of the issues raised about the public gallery that night. Please could one of you show us exactly WHERE in the guidance notes, or anywhere else, you informed people of the necessity of collecting a ticket to get in to the gallery on that occasion and exactly WHERE you said that these would be given out at 4pm?  As far as I can see you have referred us to guidance which makes NO MENTION of these two pieces of information - vital for anyone wishing to be present at the hearing.If these important details were NOT in fact in the guidance notes then please explain how the office-clad crowd we presume to have been Glenkerrin employees knew to queue many hours earlier to get a ticket when the great majority of residents clearly did not.I was one of those shunted into the Victoria Hall that night and having experienced several planning committee hearings over the years I got there early but had absolutely no inkling, along with many others, that the Council had already allocated all the seats by ticket from 4pm.

Hannah Wells ● 6442d

Having been in that queue (see ealier comment)I agree with Hannah and Andy. I had the same thought at the time that I stood behind the crowd.What interested and saddened me is that there are so many people who oppose the application that I was amazed that there was such a small number trying to get in. In the blog sites/press there was so much passion that I was expecting banners demonstrations and shouting etc outside the Town Hall. But none did I see. Why was I so wrong?Because I thought there would be so many residents in attendance on one of the biggest issues which has hit Ealing since perhaps the building of the Railway station,to me it was so obvious that the Council could exect a large crowd. So it is natural to think they would have made arrangements in advance. So really it is not clever to say that if you wanted to go, then you should have established well in advance what arrangements the Council had made.Most unfortuneately I just cannot remember whether I looked at the website or phoned or both. I just have a vague memory that I did look at the Planning Committee section where I think there was some info about tickets and timings.But can I find it now? No. You may feel that this was not the place to put the info. In that case you would be absolutely correct. That is where the negligence incompetence and cynical lack of care lies. If you get an apology then I doubt it will have any more weight than the one given for RBS by Fred the Shed.In my opinion the website is old technology and no longer serves modern day needs. The breast beating element in Around Ealing is infantilising. But as you penetrating and sometimes controversial readers will know, apparently the majority of Ealingites are happy enough with the services we receive. Perhaps a person with knowledge, should start a new thread discussing where the Council spends its money on communications, and how much on trying to influence its citizens as well as keeping them in the dark.

George Knox ● 6440d

George, I quite agree that in view of the importance of this particular development a big crowd would have been expected and therefore it would have been incumbent on people wanting to attend to establish beforehand what arrangements the Council had made. That is precisely what we did. We studied the agenda and related guidance notes that had been made available on the website. The point is that they omitted vital information about the need to obtain a ticket and the time the tickets were being issued – information that should have been there, but wasn’t! We cannot be expected to be psychic. We believed the Council would follow the procedure documented in the paperwork pertaining to the meeting. Should we now be blamed for placing trust in our own Council?It is disappointing you are unable to remember but I suggest that it must have taken you a phone call to find out you had to get a ticket and queue well before 4pm as there never seems to have been anything on the Council’s website to indicate the need to do this. Perhaps someone from the Council will graciously clarify? Andy, the Council may well have made a cock-up but the idea that a naive junior officer probably obliged someone claiming the need to ‘nip out of work to pick up a ticket’ seems, in my opinion, somewhat incredulous given that Arthur has stated that the Council had already erected a rope handrail for the queue on the Town Hall steps as early as 2.30pm that afternoon. This surely demonstrates that they expected a queue to form prior to this point in time i.e. at least 1.5 hours before they intended to release tickets – hardly a response to expecting one person to pop out from work.And Gregory has told us that by 5pm the Council informed him that there were only 5 tickets lefts. As we know this is out of a possible 40. Therefore between 4pm and 5pm, whilst most unsuspecting interested parties were expecting to queue for a 7pm entry, the Council had already doled out 87.5% of the spaces in the public gallery.  Gregory also stated that there were empty seats in the public gallery on the night. Why was this the case when the overspill room was crowded full of residents who wanted to be in there? Did the Council (naively) facilitate interested parties who perhaps thought that an emptier gallery would be better than one filled with protesting residents? Ealing Council, we know that your councillors and Council spokespeople peruse and post on this site and I have appealed to you to correct my assertions that you failed to notify people of the need to collect a ticket from 4pm in the guidance you issued in relation to obtaining a place in the public gallery for the Arcadia planning committee meeting on 17th December 2008. What are we to make of your silence?

Hannah Wells ● 6439d